Bush Admin. Appoints Civil-Liberties Officer

Zephyros writes "The WSJ reports that the Bush administration has appointed a Civil Liberties Protection Officer in order to assuage the public's privacy concerns. From the article: 'As the son of a U.S. aid worker stationed in Guatemala during the 1970s civil war, Alex Joel recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both armed soldiers and civilians alike would order his family out of their car to search it. Those first-hand brushes with totalitarianism, says Mr. [Alex] Joel, have led him to take the rights of individuals very seriously.' It remains to be seen how effective he will be, but at least they're recognizing the concern."

Comments

Great...

[fredistheking]

I feel so much better now.

Re:Great...

[lymond01]

Concerns me that we actually need a Civil Liberties Officer....

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

The livestock's gone. Quick, close the barn door!

Re:Great...

[mrchaotica]

Indeed; all government officials (and Citizens, for that matter) should be "Civil Liberties Officers!"

Re:Great...

[SeaFox]

All I got to say is:

Look! Someone else in government who's going to get paid to do nothing!

Re:Great...

[dcam]

I remember a great cartoon in a newspaper soon after 9/11.

A justice figure is holding a sword and telling a small child (labelled civil liberties) to watch out for the backswing.

Good first step

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Like Hitler appointing a blue ribbon panel to review the status of Jews.

Re:Good first step

[SatanicPuppy]

That's a good analogy...uh...BadAnalogyGuy...

*wanders off muttering to himself*

Re:Good first step

[BadAnalogyGuy]

That's a good analogy...uh...BadAnalogyGuy...

Yeah... They can't all be losers.

Re:Good first step

[voice_of_all_reason]

This sentiment has natural immunity to godwin damage because it so excellently mirrors what the article says:

in order to assuage the public's privacy concerns

That's right, his supposed purpose is only to make people stop worrying about privacy (at least publically). Naturally, this can be accomplished somewhere between two extremes -- a) returning rights to the people, or b) summary executions

Re:Good first step

[Colonel Angus]

If that was a multiple choice question, I choose (a).

Re:Good first step

[Urusai]

I disagree. Bush is extremely concerned about privacy rights--for the Executive Branch.

Re:Good first step

[Xtravar]

That's a reasonable observation... uh... voice_of_all_reason...

Re:Good first step

[TummyX]

Do you guys listen to yourselves?

What, I wonder, will you and your crack moderators do when bush leaves office?

Re:Good first step

[colinrichardday]

Depending on who succeeds him, perhaps break out the champagne and celebrate a (possible) return of liberty?

Re:Good first step

[Sj0]

I'd say you're in a dreamworld. The only difference between Bush and those who came before him is that the ones who came before him were competent enough to play god without irritating the peasants.

Re:Good first step

[TummyX]

Coming from a guy who's not afraid to rip on bush in public.

Re:Good first step

[ClamIAm]

That comment has natural immunity to Godwin damage because it's true. A lot of what governments are doing to civil liberties these days is exactly what happened in places like Nazi Germany. The US might be leading the charge, but other places (Britain comes to mind) are also passing some pretty scary stuff.

Re:Good first step

[colinrichardday]

I did qualify my remark. I wouldn't expect Senator Clinton to be a paladin for liberty.

Re:Good first step

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everything can be a screen door on a battle ship.

Re:Good first step

[rtb61]

I think you meant to say, privacy for those that can afford it. The executive branch is not deserving of any privacy, they did not pay to get into office and they certainly don't have sufficient funds to stay in office.

They are after all just the puppets and the ones doing the funding and the lobbying are the real powers of the land and they are they ones deciding who will lose their privacy and who will retain it (and you can't have your puppets keeping secrets from you).

Those anti-terror laws seem to be able to be twisted pretty much any way money and lawyers want to and in the long run seem to be targeted at the greatest threat to the rich and greedy, the poor and democracy. After all aren't trade unions a threat to corporate profits i.e. unions terrorising corporations with strikes. Don't democracy rally organisers indirectly intimidate the general public where protest rallie will be held.

Useless

[Stiletto]

Useless because he reports to the Director of National Intelligence. Now, if the Director of National Intelligence reported to HIM, then we might have something to celebrate.

Re:Useless

[Ravenouss]

I hope you were talking of His Infernal Majesty(HIM), it's a lameass Finnish pop-rock band.

Re:Useless

[demachina]

Its also quite possible his dad was working for the CIA when he was a "U.S. aid worker" in Guatemala and was aiding and abetting the right wing death squads the U.S. supported during Guatemala's long, ugly civil war and U.S. sponsored dictatorship. You never know but the CIA uses journalists and aid workers as fronts on a regular basis.

During that war and the many other proxy wars like it anything to stop the spread of communism was OK, including Fascism and death squads killing people trying to organize workers so they would have a life slightly better than abject poverty and bare minimum subsistence wages. Had to keep the labor costs down so the wealthy ruling elite and American corporations that ran those countries could improve their profit margins (a role now filled by China).

Now its a better than 50/50 chance his dad wasn't a CIA agent but its also quite possible.

Negroponte in his younger days was a key proponent and operator of right wing dictatorships, repression and death squads in Cental America, so maybe Negroponte and this guy's family are friends and cronyism is how you get jobs, in this administration especially.

This is a joke right.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is his job? On how to best trample them?

Any bests?

[Moby Cock]

Any bets on how long it will take bloggers to dig up dirt on this guy? The Bush adminstration has never done anything for altruistic reasons and this appointment is no different.

Re:Any bests?

[heinousjay]

Bloggers? Are you actually putting stock in bloggers? People that post vitriolic rants with nothing but circumreferential sources and bitterness to back them up? I think real journalists stand a much better chance here.

Re:Any bests?

[Moby Cock]

Real journalists? You mean corporate controlled pawns who are gagged for fear of threatening advetising revenues?

Re:Any bests?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Bloggers are the journalism equivalent of the "free market". I.e. a horde of independent, individually motivated (for whatever reason) people who are indpendently from each other digging for information. Vast majority of it turns out to be junk (sort of like plastic Chinese crap at Wal-Mart) but some manage to produce items of genuine quality. The strength is in the chaotic, but all-encompassing, method of search, very much the same strength which "free market" has in its respective area. But also having similar downisdes, chaos and great inefficiencies being some of them.

And before any free-market religion convert jumps on this with "but free markets are most efficient thing ever!" meme, lets not kid ourselves, they are efficient only from the perspective of their search function and suffer a host of horrible inefficiencies elsewhere, very much as any other method of allocation of limited resources does, each being more efficient at some of its aspects when compared to others.

Re:Any bests?

[Rydia]

In my experience, though, most of the worthwhile news bloggers are journalists already, and have just found a new medium to put their journalistic... uh... stuff to work.

Re:Any bests?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Many are merely people with vested interest in the matter, focusing on one single issue, some are people with journalistic aspirations, or who could be considered as the so-called "freelance" journalists. Again, it is the quality of one's work which makes one a "journalist", not some ritualistic annointment by the media corporations.

Re:Any bests?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly do you mean by altruistic? Can presidents, acting in offical capacity, ever do anything truely altruistic? Nothing done with public resources can ever be considered altruistic... everything done is either for the good of the state, or else is wasted.

Re:Any bests?

[bcnstony]

Dirt? It's all around him (and the US). Does anybody know why Guatamala has had a shaky political record? From wikipedia:

Guatemalan history has been marked by the Cold War between the USA and the USSR. The Central Intelligence Agency, supported by a small group of Guatemalan citizens, orchestrated the overthrow of the democratic socialist freely-elected Guatemalan government in 1954. This was known as Operation PBSUCCESS and led to over thirty years of unrest in the nation during which over 200,000 Guatemalans were killed (students, workers, professionals and opossitors of all political tendencies during the first 10 years of the repression and thousands of mostly Mayan Indians in the last phases of the conflict), more than 450 Mayan villages were destroyed, and over one million people became refugees. This is considered to be one of the worst ethnic cleansings in modern Latin America. Contributing reasons include US support of every successive, mostly non-democratic and military governments in Guatemala. From the 1950s until the 1990s, the U.S. directly supported Guatemala's army by supplying it with combatant training, weaponry, and money. The U.S. sent the Green Berets to Guatemala to transform its Army into a "modern counter-insurgency force," making their army the most powerful and sophisticated in Central America.

For more amusement, type guatamala and CIA into google.

Re:Any bests?

[ajs]

Yeah, I have to say that it doesn't take much of tinfoil hat to assume that this guy was stationed in Guatamala as an "aid worker" by the CIA. Such activities were very common in the region between the 1960s and 1980s in an attempt to prevent the region from turning into a foothold for communism in this hemisphere.

Now you have to wonder... if he's CIA and was stationed in Central America during the heyday of U.S. involvement there... what exactly would his agenda for U.S. civil liberties be? *shudder*

He could be a great guy, but given the administration that he reports to, I have to say that the doubts win out for me, and I'm certainly not feeling like my rights were just protected.

Re:Any bests?

[heinousjay]

But the information bloggers dig up tends to come from traditional journalists. Obviously that's not true in every single case, but the vast majority are sourced from professionals and basically, well, regurgitated.

I understand the purpose of the masses chaotically publishing whatever they wish, and I could have expressed my point in a more coherent and less pissy fashion, but in the end the consistently low quality of anything but the most professional blogs eliminates them as a source of news for me.

Sorry for the massive run-on.

Re:Any bests?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

But the information bloggers dig up tends to come from traditional journalists.

I am not sure if that is so, as far as I can tell no verifiable data exists to back that assertion up. On the other hand, great many possibilities of worthwile journalistic activity exist on small time, one-issue blogs run simply by people with personal, first hand knowledge of the events and a grasp of English language. For example, take a look at this blog.

In light of this, you would have to come up with some stronger argument which would show a strong corelation between traditional media credentials and the originality of information. May I remind you that to be a "journalist" only two things are required: an original, relevant story and some means of publishing it. With the advent of the Internet, it is understandable why the "traditional" media journalists feel so threatened and why they desperately attempt to paint themselves as the sources of all journalism, in spite obvious evidence to the contrary.

but in the end the consistently low quality of anything but the most professional blogs eliminates them as a source of news for me.

Then you are looking at this in a wrong way, there are many functions many of the blogs perform out there. Some are mostly irellevant junk most of the time, interspersed with a rare gem of originality. Some are boring but by the confluence of events in the real world can become highly relevant. But some are aggregators of data from such rarely visited blogs and their role is similar to that of the "traditional" media: to bring various pieces of data into one spot, subsequently "refining" the overall quality of the contents, so that busy people do not have to dregde through the irellevant. Some are more successful at this then others. But the crucial distinction between blogosphere and the traditional media is that blogosphere requires the reader to search and think, while the traditional media purports to have done it all for you already.

Re:Any bests?

[heinousjay]

But the crucial distinction between blogosphere and the traditional media is that blogosphere requires the reader to search and think, while the traditional media purports to have done it all for you already.

I take issue with one part of that - traditional media may purport to think for me, but that doesn't mean I need to let it. I am capable of assimilating the content without it making my decisions for me.

On the other hand, great many possibilities of worthwile journalistic activity exist on small time, one-issue blogs run simply by people with personal, first hand knowledge of the events and a grasp of English language. For example, take a look at this blog.

There's some interesting content there, but mostly it's not news, it's a journal. It gives a limited perspective, just like every other source. I suspect you value it because it reinforces your opinion (which is understandable). I could be wrong, I'm rather tired as I type this, and I necessarily have to make assumptions in any case. (I'm not expressing disagreement with the content of the blog you pointed out, and I'm aware it's only one of many, so don't take this as a dismissal of anything. I don't intend that.)

By and large, I think we disagree on this because we approach things from different angles. I'm not sure how to express this correctly because, once again, I'm extremely tired, but I'll try. It seems that you are looking to cast a wide net and eliminate what you find valueless. Panning for gold, perhaps? I pick a few high-profile sources that are in opposition, and read between the lines as much as possible. I think in the end we probably tend to settle near the same space.

Re:Any bests?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

There's some interesting content there, but mostly it's not news, it's a journal. It gives a limited perspective, just like every other source. I suspect you value it because it reinforces your opinion (which is understandable)

I value it because it offers unique perspective. One of course has to take it with other factors in mind: Riverbend is Suni and likely from a family which was moderately well-off under Saddam, which colours her perspective by this association with a particular ethnic/social group. But such a caution has to be excercised with every news source.

It seems that you are looking to cast a wide net and eliminate what you find valueless. Panning for gold, perhaps? I pick a few high-profile sources that are in opposition, and read between the lines as much as possible. I think in the end we probably tend to settle near the same space.

But what makes these sources "high profile"? I would posit that it is their corporate backing and financial resources, frequently not associated with the "journalism". Washington Times for example is essentially a front to the Sun Myung Moon's religious cult and loses vast sums of money every year, yet is able to maintain "high profile" due to essentially limitless supply of cash from that organisation. GE, Viviendi own NBC, Viacom owns CBS, Disney owns ABC, Newscorp owns FOX, etc and so on. All of the "high profile" media are essentially fronts for some multi-national mega-corporations 99% of whose business consists of something other then "journalism". And the criteria for being an employee of these organisations is similarly suspect.

So while using blogs for news may seem as low-yeld activity, as the signal-to-noise ratio is low, relying on the so called "mainstream media" strikes me as exceedingly dangerous. One does not need to look much further then the "Rah! Rah!" media coverage in the run up of the Iraq war, where any dissenting voices were essentially muzzled as "unpatriotic" and many "high profile" media were downright complicit in manufacturing "rationale" for the war, complete with fake "news" stories being fed to them by White House operatives and various other con-artists like Ahmed Chelabi. All of this followed by being cheerfully and uncritically "embedded" with the military to deliver sanitized, Hollywood-approved version of the "war", while studiously ignoring the reports of all the freelance, independent journalists on the ground. And may I point out that during all that time it was the blogs who were painting a picture of the affairs much closer to reality, as it is now patently obvious, eventually forcing the much belated, navel-gazing, dismissive and defiant "mea culpas" from places like The New York Times.

To me a journalist is not someone annointed by a multi-billion corporation, but someone who is able to publish original, thought provoking stories and whose search is not for the corporate dollar but for verifiable truth. And I would suggest that odds of finding such a person on his/her passion-driven blog are much higher then in a corproate news-room where any such frevor will, by the very mechanics of such a place, be severely constrained and manipulated by conflicting loyalties and financial concerns.

No, no, no!

[sevenoverzero]

An executive-appointed position--regardless of which party is in power--is precisely where we cannot depend on our civil liberties being protected.

Re:No, no, no!

[jfengel]

I'd be happy to hear alternatives. Executive appointments smack of the risk of abuse of power, but at least the chief executive is called to account for his actions every four years or so. The party in power changes every so often. If you think that elected officials are risky, unelected officials are even worse.

So either you're suggesting a radical reformulation of the way "governments are instituted among men" (and perhaps this government has "become destructive of these ends"), or you're merely pointing out the risks in hopes that people will become more observant in time for the next opportunity to change the power players in November.

Re:No, no, no!

[Anonymous Coward]

at least the chief executive is called to account for his actions every four years or so

But that isn't actually the case in practice. The term limit means that a president only has to be popular towards the end of his first term of office. If he gets a second term, he can't be re-elected ever again anyway, so how is he still accountable?

Re:No, no, no!

[sevenoverzero]

We probably agree, for the most part, so don't take any of this as argumentativeness. My real point is that executive stooges tend to be precisely that, no matter what, even when they are otherwise capable people. Take Colin Powell in the Iraq war lead-up, for example.

Regarding the President being "called to account" every four years or so: very true, but I'm not sure that many voters consider potential executive appointees (aside from, perhaps, Supreme Court justices) when they go to the presidential polls. As long as they don't screw up too badly, all but a few are almost completely ignored by the public while they're in office.

In the case of this position, my real concern is stated quite succinctly in a paragraph from TFA:

Unlike inspectors general at federal agencies, these privacy officers lack the subpoena power necessary to conduct investigations and don't report to Congress.

I guess I am being an armchair quarterback here, but I can think about suggestions for alternatives and get back to you, if you'd like. :)

Re:No, no, no!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd be happy to hear alternatives."

Impeachment?

"If you think that elected officials are risky, unelected officials are even worse."

The story is about an unelected official. What's your line of reasoning here, it's still better than North Korea? Not particularly high standards.

Re:No, no, no!

[WilliamSChips]

I say that after a president's second term, we vote on whether he should be arrested or not. That would make it at least a little better...

Fishy? Yeah.

[jonnythan]

I think this guy *knows without a doubt* that his place is to make the public feel better by showing the administration "cares," not to actually take the bull by the horns and enact any sorts of changes.

Talk about propaganda.

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[Firehed]

Um, duh. Well, 'duh' for anyone with half a brain. Which, unfortunately, is not most of America. Honestly, we need to really start over. Soon. Now. Last week. In 1998. Whenever. Before 1984.

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[qwijibo]

Do you think tyrants know that they're tyrants? People can't judge themselves objectively.

A lot of people do some pretty bad things while believing they're doing good. Environmentalists firebomb buildings under construction. Animal rights activists sabotage labs and meat processing plants. They believe that they're helping their cause, but most people think that they're insane. Crazy people don't know that they're crazy. Everything they're doing makes perfect sense to them.

I'm not taking a side for or against Bush here, but I do think it's possible that he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing and this guy is there to provide confirmation. Sure, the administration isn't going to go on TV tomorrow night and say "Oh. My. God. We were really out of control. We're sorry. Please forgive us." However, some good can come out of someone who has access to more information than the public saying "umm, don't you think that's a bit excessive?"

Of course, the opposite position is just as likely. This guy could be a stooge that is there to help tell everyone that their liberties are being protected by the video cameras being installed in their homes. If you tell a lie often enough, you may get the majority to believe it. My personal favorite is the movement over the last several decades to declare the constitution unconstitutional. That's some mighty fine doublethink we got going on there. =)

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[themassiah]

"You don't know the history of meat processing like I do, Matt. I've researched it. You're being glib."

With appologies to Tom Cruise. *wretch*

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[Moby Cock]

People can't judge themselves objectively.

Nonsense. I know I'm the most humble person ever.

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[Captain Sarcastic]

This guy could be a stooge that is there to help tell everyone that their liberties are being protected by the video cameras being installed in their homes.

I remember reading somewhere that, in Imperial China, there was an interesting punishment meted out to misbehaving schoolgirls. They were to spend a night standing a post near the Emperor's bedroom, and relieve his insomnia by regularly shouting out, "The Empire is at peace! The Empire is at peace!"

It strikes me as unlikely that this was the Emperor's idea....

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

No sorts of changes are required. Had your privacy violated by the goverment lately? No anyone who has? What harm came of it? That's what I thought ....

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[qwijibo]

I don't believe you. I want to see you and the Dali Lama in a deathmatch for the title of most humble person ever. Even if you are the Dali Lama, you're not going to win. =)

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[MCraigW]

the movement over the last several decades to declare the constitution unconstitutional

I'm curious to know what you are referring to, please give a bit more detail. Thanks.

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[qwijibo]

That's just a general feeling I get.

The first amendment protects newspapers with thousands of readers and a profit motive, but not web sites or blogs that have thousands of readers and are free.

Government is not allowed to support or enforce a particular religion, but public schools use tax money to purchase science books that leave out scientific information about evolution and teach one particular religion's beliefs.

Email in transit (on the wire) is considered protected by law. At rest (on a server), it's not afforded the same protection. For those not familiar with how email works under the covers, the only case where you apparently have protection is when the sender connects directly to your mail server and you refuse to cooperate with law enforcement without a warrant. Most ISP's are convinced to cooperate since the effect of a warrant(on the off chance they could get one) would be all of their customers email being collected for investigation and the mail server taken offline indefinitely.

Ex post facto laws being upheld by courts. Ie, in California that tactic has been used with some firearms. It works like this:
1. You purchase a legal product in full compliance with all laws
2. A law gets passed to ban that product
3. You are ordered to surrender the product with no compensation

If you fail to comply with 3, the continued possession is the crime you can be charged with. If you do comply, you've been deprived of property without due process. This is punishment for step 1, where no law was violated.

In fact, these are just a few things that come off the top of my head. You might want to try http://yro.slashdot.org/ for some more examples.

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

By and large, US citizens have shown they are quite susceptible to spin, so this will be quite a success.

Oh look...shiny object...and if you don't care for shiny objects... look...there's a dark one called 911.

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

The nail in the coffin is that even if the program fails outright, government still wins. In fact, when you're spending other people's money, and taking that money by force, you can't possibly lose. Look at Amtrak or the postal service. Both have been major drains of tax dollars, operating at a complete loss for decades, but what do you think would benefit government more: abolishing the programs, eliminating the relevant taxes, and letting free enterprise replace government with proven, infinitely more efficient business models -- or continuing to prop up the failed business using other people's money, and taking a cut for adminstration?

Really, politicians have nothing to lose by propping up failed government programs with other people's money. What's the worst that can happen? They fail to get re-elected and quietly retire a multi-millionare -- the horrors!

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[revscat]

Put another way: evil never thinks it is. Adolf HItler thought he was doing the German people a huge favor by having millions of Jews murdered. Stalin felt he was doing good for the Soviet state. George Bush believes he is serving America, Christ, and the free market.

A fictional example is the X-Men villain Magneto. He is interesting because you can understand where he is coming from, instead of being some simplistic "take over the world" villain like Dr. Doom or Lex Luthor. While he has megalomaniacal tendencies, his underlying motivation is defensive and almost messianic: "the humans are out to destroy the mutants, I can, should, and will keep that from happening." He is evil, but he certainly doesn't think so, and his stance is logical and consistent.

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[Maxo-Texas]

And he's only really evil if you look at it from a certain angle.

Humans who implicitly support those killing mutants are "innocent" and it is evil to kill them and only those "actively" killing mutants can be defended against.

This is like the islamic charity organizations that provide support for the surviving family members of suicide bombs or the members of any group that attacks another group and who do not actively attempt to stop that attack.

So magneto killing those who permit others to kill mutants isn't really evil. Only when he kills humans who are actively protecting humans and resisting those killing mutants would he be evil.

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[Jearil]

And this is why I come to slashdot.

Only here can I read someone's insightful comment that successfully links the thought patterns of people such as Hitler, Stalin, and Bush to a comic book character. Sure does create an easier corrilation between the "real world" and the one we can all understand.

Thanks :)

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[Maxo-Texas]

hehe.

I can make it into a car analogy just to finish things off if you like.

B)

*and there is a bug above. I should have said

1) It is evil to kill humans actively protecting mutants
2) It is not evil to kill humans who support mutant killers but do not kill mutants.
3) It is probably not evil to kill humans who let others kill mutants but do nothing to stop it.

---
It's complicated since it is a social action- not a direct action.

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[dangitman]

George Bush believes he is serving America, Christ, and the free market.

I think there's an even simpler explanation for Bush. He just doesn't know what the hell is going on at all. Firstly, he appears mildly brain-damaged (possibly from alcohol abuse), and on top of that, they obviously have him on some hard core psychoactive drugs like anti-depressants. He probably needs an aide to remind him what is own name is every morning. He just does what the voices coming through his earpiece tell him.

Re:Fishy? Yeah.

[mrraven]

You mean developers who destroy habitat unnecessarily to make a quick buck are bad when they think they are good, don't you? Your logic works both ways, much as you wish it didn't.

In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Rumsfeld moved to head new "Department of Peace".

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

and if you want peace you must prepare for war?

Re:In related news...

[Trails]

I think it's Ministry of Peace.

Re:In related news...

[Jamil Karim]

Also related:
Microsoft has appointed an Open Source Advocate.
DeBeers has created a panel promoting hand-me-down engagement rings.
The Beef Industry is promoting vegetarianism.

Re:In related news...

[MrNougat]

And whoever replaces Scott McClellan will head the Ministry of Truth.

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny but not a neccesary joke because there's already the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense has never succesfully defended the United States homeland from an attack. And in fact one of the attacks destroyed the Department's headquarters. Their headquarters.

(To be fair though, it has successfully defended its colonies, client states and some of its 702 military bases in 132 different countries worldwide and counting from attack, which may tell something to the actual people who live in the U.S. about where their government's priorties are).

But, they have successfully attacked a number of foreign lands.* Well, part of the Department(before it got absorbed into this one) used to be called the Department of War.

* The latest attack of Iraq is going alright too, despite what the media says. Kind of like the media on the Vietnam War calling the attacks a failure, even though they were a success for the Department. After millions dead and tens of millions wounded and diseased and the country literally laid to waste the DRVN couldn't really set much of an example for prosperous development, so the attacks were highly successful in achieving the goal of stymieing independent development in Indochina and beyond. Same thing in Iraq. The Baathists wanted to develop away from the American model, including such heresy as pushing for Euro petrodollars in OPEC. Best to attack and either stop the independent development or cause such destruction that the country stays so poor any indepedent development can't been taken as an example by other upstart nations.

Re:In related news...

[EiZei]

Well.. they did rename it from department of war to department of defence.. not too much defending going on lately.

Nothing To Hide

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

As the son of a U.S. aid worker stationed in Guatemala during the 1970s civil war, Alex Joel recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both armed soldiers and civilians alike would order his family out of their car to search it.

Let me guess. He wasn't scared because they had nothing to hide, just like all good americans!

Something tells me Joel's time in Guatemala was well spent taking notes.

Re:Nothing To Hide

[Anonymous Coward]

Alex Joel recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad

So that's why they picked him.

Re:Nothing To Hide

[dr_dank]

Something tells me Joel's time in Guatemala was well spent taking notes.

Guatemala? I thought Joel was in orbit watching bad movies with his robot friends.

Re:Nothing To Hide

[Chops]

That comment is really all you need to know to know that this guy isn't going to be worth shit as a "civil liberties officer." Armed men were pointing guns at him and rooting around in his things at random, and he was trying to find "good guys" among them.

"If only I knew which of these groups of murderous thugs I was supposed to place blind, obedient trust in..."

Who appoints?

[RunFatBoy.net]

Does this really matter if the very administration that does the infringement is the same administration that appoints the officer? Their views will be in alignment.

    "Although you might have concerns about what might potentially be going on,
    those potentials are not actually being realized and if you could see
    what was going on, you would be reassured just like everyone else," he says.

He lacks the same foresight as the rest of the administration. Even if you could say that the wiretap was legit, it sets a bad precedent; any forthcoming administration can establish the same program with ever stretching legal boundaries and say "Bush did it, it must be OK." And there wouldn't even be the oversight to say otherwise.

Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/

Re:Who appoints?

[Valdrax]

Well, I'm immediately sceptical of any Bush appointees motives.

You have...
The mining lobbyist as a number 2 in the Department of the Interior and a cattle rancher laywer as the chief counsel.
The pharmaceutical lawyer acting as lead counsel for the FDA.
The meat industry lobbyist running our meat labelling program.
The number 2 in the EPA was a Monsanto executive, and his pick for chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality represented GE in its fight against cleaning up its own toxic waste. The chief of staff left to go work for Southern Company (a major owner of coal plants) a week after clean air standard were relaxed.

Read more.

Essentially, Bush has packed every government enforcement agency with people who have spent their careers trying to help companies get out of complying with regulations meant to protect the people. Even his own Supreme Court nominees are strong advocates of executive power. His legacy has been to undermine every control meant to keep him and his supports from running out of control.

Re:Who appoints?

[Richthofen80]

Thats right, all those positions should be filled with advocates who have no industry experience. Or, better yet, with nubile young 'advocacy' grads or whatever other social services equivalent degrees exist.

Do you know if previous presidents appointed people NOT in the industry? Are you looking for someone appointed who has no experience and therefore can recommend regulations that ruin the businesses that provide those services? Nope, I read a one-sided leftist website, I'm as informed as I need to be!

Re:Who appoints?

[antiMStroll]

It's religion, handed down from the Book of the Chicago School of Economics. Guvmint bad, businesses good. Who better to handle the nation's affairs than captains of industry? In us we trust. Toss in ad hominem slandering of critics as unAmerican (unchristian or pagan no longer carries the same weight), substitute, or more accurately re-introduce the Muslims menace and the picture's complete save for a pointy hat and robes for Bush. The current Admin is what the US was founded to combat.

The Real Question...

[Hangtime]

Will he have any juice to stop, sway, change direction, or do something in our best interest? Its easy to give someone a job but its quite another to give them the responsibility and the power to do it effectively.

Re:The Real Question...

[Dan667]

He won't even get a juice box.

Bush's previous appointments / plans

[LinuxMacWin]

- No child left behind czar

- Supreme court justice Harriet Myers

- Clean Air

- Environment czar to relax the environment initiatives

- Homeland security from everyone but the illegals

- VP himself to supervise energy policy ... working well at 3 dollars a gallon

- And last but not the least ... himself ... the DECIDER. Get me Saddam ... and who is this OBL you talk about

Re:Bush's previous appointments / plans

[Tackhead]

You forgot the really funny ones!

June 2003: Nuala O'Connor Kelly, (former Chief "Privacy" Officer of Doubleclick) appointed to be Chief "Privacy" officer for HomeSec.

February 2005: D. Reed Freeman, (former Gator/Claria Chief "Privacy" Officer) sitting on HomeSec's Data "Privacy" and "Integrity" Advisory Committee.

Maybe we should be thankful. Based on precedent, the BSA guy should be put in charge of the Copyright office, or perhaps hired by NSA to... adjust its priorities when it comes to what sort of traffic is worthy of further investigation.

April 2006: Department of Commerce, undersecretary for technology: Robert Cresanti, former VP of public policy at the Business Software Alliance (BSA).

Now we have a guy who "recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both armed soldiers and civilians alike would order his family out of their car to search it", and who says one of his best qualifications for the job includes "first-hand brushes with totalitarianism" in charge of Civil Liberties instead.

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."
- Ash, Army of Darkness (1993)

Anyways, freedom's overrated these days. You know what they do to people in those freedom camps? (Yeah, neither do I, and I'd like to keep it that way!)

There's still time to appoint Jeff Bezos to run USPTO! (I've got a $10 bet riding on it, so please, write your Congressmen today! :)

Re:Bush's previous appointments / plans

[Qzukk]

"recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both armed soldiers and civilians alike would order his family out of their car to search it"

The funny part is that it seems pretty obvious to me who the bad guys are here, and that'd be "all of them", assuming I'm not trying to drive my family onto an army base.

Re:Bush's previous appointments / plans

[hcob$]

- Environment czar to relax the environment initiatives

- VP himself to supervise energy policy ... working well at 3 dollars a gallon

Pick one. Tighter environmental regulations, cheaper gas (with current technology). These two have now become mutually exclusive. One of the direct causes of high gas prices are the multiple(read dozens) formulations and qualities of gasoline/deisel that can only be sold in certain markets. Tack on the the HUGE restrictions to expanding/creating refineries (some companies worked 10+ years only to give up becuase it wasn't going to happen with current regs), and no capacity to expand production.... you get higher demand and less availability.

Go look at that economics class curve of supply and demand. With all the increase in demand and no room to increase supply.... Costs are going to do one thing. Go Up.

You can't have it both ways.

Re:Bush's previous appointments / plans

[Loonacy]

But it seems we can have both relaxed environment regulations AND high gas prices.

Re:Bush's previous appointments / plans

[colinrichardday]

You forgot Michael "You're doing a heck of a job" Brown. Although that one might not be funny to the residents of New Orleans.

This is like

[Soporific]

This is like a wolf appointing the fox to guard the hen house...

~S

Re:This is like

[An Onerous Coward]

Not even remotely.

A fox has teeth.

Helen Keller

[Anonymous Coward]

I really thought they would nominate Helen Keller for this position. A perfect example of "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."

Don't Worry...

[BoredWolf]

I'll tell you when your rights are being violated.

A.G.

[ktappe]

In a properly functioning administration, the U.S. Attorney General would be the defender of civil liberties.

-Kurt

Re:A.G.

[gowen]

Or the Supreme Court.

Incidentally, does anyone else think that a Supreme Court that is appointed by the executive (because, lets face it, Congressional ratification means jackshit if the same part holds both) somewhat defeats the object of judicial impartiality?

Re:A.G.

[955301]

judicial impartiality is guaranteed by the lifetime nature of the appointment - the only thing the executive could hold over an appointee is their job. In the Supreme Court, than cannot happen. Perhaps the State court systems could appoint them, but it would be more dicey if the legislative branch had the authority.

Re:A.G.

[gowen]

judicial impartiality is guaranteed by the lifetime nature of the appointment

Well, thats the theory. The only problem is, it's bollocks.

Partisan presidents (of all hues) appoint justices who are to their opinions on hot topics -- abortion, stem cells, gun control, illegal wiretaps -- whatever. The idea that the Supreme Court judge every issue dispassionately and without regard to their personal, political and religious beliefs is absolute claptrap.

Justices could go against their political sponsors opinions, but its been 30 years since the sort people with the balls to do that have even been nominated.

Add to that : frequently conservative justices retire during conservative administrations and vice versa, thereby preserving the balance of power.

Re:A.G.

[Anonymous Coward]

7-2 is a balance of power?

Re:A.G.

[ClamIAm]

President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.
--Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General

*Shudder*

Disclosure: I didn't pay attention to politics before Bush was elected. I was young then.

Re:A.G.

[Anonymous Coward]

Justices could go against their political sponsors opinions, but its been 30 years since the sort people with the balls to do that have even been nominated.

Maybe, but a number of the "liberal" judges the conservatives want to replace were appointed by conservatives and considered conservative at the time. To me it's just a sign of how far right this country has shifted, which makes you correct.

Re:A.G.

[geminidomino]

You know, something tells me the technology wasn't around yet for Washington to approve it on a "much broader scale" in the LATE FUCKING 1700s (can't tap a phone 50 years before it's invented. Can't datamine the internet 200 years before it...

Seriously, was there ANY technology around then that wasn't so hopelessly primitive that grants this asshole a hope of not being exposed as a total ignorant fuckstick (or at least assuming we are)?

Re:A.G.

[ClamIAm]

Well, the telephone was technically around by the time of Lincoln's presidency (quoth Wikipedia), but I kinda doubt it was used until cheap recording systems and tiny microphones were invented. So yeah, this guy's pretty much an idiot, or was hoping that nobody would notice.

Re:A.G.

[geminidomino]

And Lincoln was still several decades AFTER Washington. This assbag is probably counting on the wonderful quality of the US Dept of Education and threw in Washington for the "Hero effect."

Gods, I hate those fucking people.

In the new Ministry of Truth

[Dr. Manhattan]

I'll beleive things have actually changed in their policies when... um... man, I can't think of anything that would prove to me those leopards have changed their spots.

World's fastest handwashing/exoneration.

[gowen]

When the NSA wiretapping program began, Mr. Joel wasn't working for the intelligence office, but he says he has reviewed it and finds no problems.

Why do I get the feeling that this was the only criterion on the job's person specification.

Personally . .

[geniusj]

I, personally, will take the gesture with a grain of salt. However, I'm more than willing to give this a chance. The worst that will likely come of it is nothing. I'm willing to give the guy a shot though..

Re:Personally . .

[ursabear]

I'm with geniusj on this one.

I must sincerely admit that my initial reaction was very cynical, and that some of the thoughts in my head mirrored many of the unkind comments posted thus far.

However, I will wait and see what happens before I decide that it is all a ploy/head fake/Bad Thing(TM). I love my country, and respect its systems, but sometimes, things get a little scary.

Right month, wrong date

[Half a dent]

Isn't this story 19 days late?

First task

[chord.wav]

Removing these NYPD cameras, could be a good start.

Re:First task

[Anonymous Coward]

there's nothing wrong with police cameras in public places.

Isn't it Bush's job ?

[Yvanhoe]

Isn't it the role of the head of state to preserve civil liberties ? Especially those guaranteed by the Constitution ?

Re:Isn't it Bush's job ?

[OctoberSky]

Yes, but what you have to understand is that he has figured out that it is easier to put blame on someone else than to actually think for yourself...

See:
Mike Brown: Katrina
FBI, CIA: September 11th, 2001
Alberto Gonzales: Abu Ghraib Prison
Lewis "Scooter" Libby: Confidential Leaker

When the civil liberties get worse, he just says "Alex Joel was placed there to fix these problems" Then when the media pushes harder he says "Alex Joel was trying his best" Then he removes (has him resign) Mr. Joel from his current post and acts as if everything he did was right. Then puts some Texan in the spot to reward them for helping him out when he was a young politician... oh wait, he puts (tries to) those people on the Supreme Court.

Re:Isn't it Bush's job ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, and then we have the ACLU to help keep an eye on things.

Re:Isn't it Bush's job ?

[Peyna]

Actually, it's the role of every single officer of the government to protect the Constitution.

Re:Isn't it Bush's job ?

[From A Far Away Land]

Bushh is the "Decider" President now. Haven't you heard? He's decided to delegate his duties out to appointees, until his only remaining duty is Commander of Watch This Swing.

Re:Isn't it Bush's job ?

[Guppy06]

It's the role of everybody in the government not to violate them to begin with. The three branches of the federal government are arranged in such a way as to try to hold each other accountable, but single-party rule kinda throws that out the window.

The people are also supposed to protect their civil liberties through bills of rights, and state constitutions and the courts that interpret them tend to enact more rigorous protections of those rights than their federal counterparts, but, of course, that doesn't stop the federal government themselves.

In a republican government, it's ultimately up to the people themselves to protect their rights. Whether or not the federal government is truly republican, though, is debatable.

Re:Isn't it Bush's job ?

[Khammurabi]

The executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws created by the legislature, and upheld by the courts. However, there's no clause in the Constitution that says what "We The People" are supposed to do when the President ignores the laws, and Congress replies with "enh." I'd have to say that the founders probably weren't expecting their descendents to vote the sources of the problem back into office, but then again we're stupid like that.

Re:Isn't it Bush's job ?

[awehttam]

One might argue that it's the role of every citizen to protect the Constitution.

Re:Isn't it Bush's job ?

[Yvanhoe]

We used to have something at the end of our Bill of Rights here in France that said "When the government violate these rights, insurrection is for the people and every part of the people, the most sacred right and the most essential duty"

Powerless

[Billosaur]

While even critics of the administration applaud the effort, they question what authority these officials have. Unlike inspectors general at federal agencies, these privacy officers lack the subpoena power necessary to conduct investigations and don't report to Congress.

And so, they become propaganda tools and little else. They need to give the position teeth, but then that's exactly what the governent doesn't want, given how the 9/11 Commission took the goverment to task for its ineptitude. The last thing they need is a government-appointed civil liberties watchdog actually doing his/her job and exposing the malfeasance going on behind the scenes.

Re:Powerless

[Hrodvitnir]

how the 9/11 Commission took the goverment to task for its ineptitude

We have vastly different views on what the term "taking to task" means. Methinks the current attitude of corporate punishment in our society has dulled your sense of justice.

Heh

[BitterAndDrunk]

If his appointment history is any sort of guide, allowing foxes to guard henhouses and the like, I'd expect this appointment to be a high ranking official in the Chinese Government.

"Civil liberties" as euphemism

[Junior J. Junior III]

Ministry of Love = Department of Justice
Ministry of Truth = Department of Mind Control
Ministry of Peace = Department of War

Re:"Civil liberties" as euphemism

[CogDissident]

Now thats not quite accurate, its not like we're being told that our food rations are being raised, when in fact they're being lowered... well, our wallets are, ok, let me start over.

Now thats not quite accurate, its not as if we live in a society where the government tapes public and private areas looking for wrongdoing... wait, let me start over.

Now thats not quite accurate, its not as if we went to war for the sake of going to war... well, we went to war to make the rich richer, so let me start over.

Now thats not quite accurate, its not as if terrorist attacks are being perpetrated against ourselves by ourselves to trump up support for the war... wait, yes we are...

Well crap, I've got no real response here. 1984 is a good book, and scarilly relevant in this current administration. Anyone have a rebuttal?

Re:"Civil liberties" as euphemism

[Guysmiley777]

That kind of thinking is doubleplusbad "CogDissident". Interesting name you have there. I'm sure a representative from the Ministry of Love would like to speak to you about it... at length.

We are at war with Terror. We have always been at war with Terror.

Re:"Civil liberties" as euphemism

[strikethree]

hm. no rebuttals. why am i not suprised?

strike

Re:"Civil liberties" as euphemism

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a rebuttal. Well, I will have if you'd shorten your post. I'm not intellectually curious enough to read the whole thing.

You shouldn't...

[SoCalChris]

I know that you were being sarcastic (At least I hope you were), but this won't change a thing.

Over a year ago, Bush created the "Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board". They haven't met a single time since the board was created.

The LA Times article that talked about it is now in their archives, and I believe is unavailable unless you pay for it.

Here is a posting that made Fark about it a while ago, although the linked to article is dead.
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink =1923742

Re:You shouldn't...

[Rei]

Meanwhile, in the far-off land of Fableia...

"Fox Appoints Chicken To Guard Henhouse Against Self"
From the Henhouse-Safe-At-Last department.

Chicken Little writes "The Aesop Journal-Times reports that the Fox has appointed a Henhouse Guardian in order to assuage the hens' fear of their new canid management. From the article: 'As the hatchling of a Rhode Island Red in Ohio during the Wolf Scare, Henrietta recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both sheep and wolves in sheep clothing would order the chickens out of the henhouse to search it. Those first-hand brushes with predators, says Ms. Henrietta Hen, have led her to take the safety of chickens very seriously.' It remains to be seen how effective she will be at guarding the henhouse from her boss, but at least the fox is recognising the concern."

Re:You shouldn't...

[prell]

When I see stories like this, the first thing that occurs to me is that they're just trying to patch things up. There is overwhelming evidence that this position was created (or newly appointed) because the Bush Administration realizes that people continue to be concerned about this, and they simply want to seem like they care. If they actually cared, they wouldn't need to create this position. If they actually cared, they would get on with the actual work of securing and defending civil liberties and human rights, by doing things like: not torturing people; talk to the press; free information; not spying on people while hiding it and therefore lying about it; pressure China to stop threatening Taiwan and to stop taking over other countries and generally hegemonizing anything they can; have respect for the self-determination of the citizens of the world, and therefore not invade other countries; not putting the desire to control the oil of the Middle East over the rights of the citizens there, and the commitment to honesty with the American people; not thinking they know better what's good for the citizens of America than we can determine for ourselves; and, forcing your religion on the populous, and creating false and hateful issues like "the gay marriage debate" (which isn't a debate as much as it is a proclamation of manifest destiny), which takes advantage of and reinforces the intolerance of everyone involved, in order to divide people into warring factions so you can get votes.

For me to believe that the action of appointing this person to this post meant that the Bush Administration had changed its tune, I would have to believe that the Bush Administration had suddenly changed their whole mission to that of peace, discretion, prosperity, and well-being. And I don't believe that.

Time will tell if I'm right or wrong, but if yesterday's news of the resignation of the White House Press Secretary is part of this same plan to show America and the world that the Bush Administration is serious about being caring, then I'm inclined to be insulted -- because the job of Press Secretary is meaningless. All the Press Secretary has to do is tell the press what the rest of the Administration wants him or her to say. You could put anyone in that job. They aren't required to ab lib or create strategy, and I assume that if they did, they'd be fired.

Re:You shouldn't...

[shmapty]

Over a year ago, Bush created the "Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board".

Re:You shouldn't...

[Anonymous Coward]

prell,

wow. you nailed it. couldn't have said it any better.

Re:You shouldn't...

[Anonymous Coward]

Over a year ago, Bush created the "Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board". They haven't met a single time since the board was created.

And Bush's official comment on the subject: "That's because they're the oversight board. Their job is to, you know, overlook the shitty job I'm doing with civil liberties."

Re:You shouldn't...

[Anonymous Coward]

For me to believe that the action of appointing this person to this post meant that the Bush Administration had changed its tune, I would have to believe that the Bush Administration had suddenly changed their whole mission to that of peace, discretion, prosperity, and well-being.

peace (sic): A bigger piece of the pie (e.g. capital) for e.g. the Bilderberger Group &co.
discretion : Bush &co. generally do not approve of "leaks"
prosperity : Look at e.g. Exxon Mobile, Haliburton, &c. OF COURSE, Bush &co. are on a mission of pro$perity.
well-being : Do you really think that these guys feel bad, at the end of the day? They rule the world. Mel Brooks wasn't just blowing smoke outta his a55 when he quipped "It's good to be the king."

It's not that they [Bush &co.] don't care about these things... It's just that they don't care about achieving/protecting these things for the rest of the population of this planet.

Re:You shouldn't...

[symbolic]

...they simply want to seem like they care.

Bingo. It's all about damage control and PR spin- elections are approaching, and Republicans are worried.

Because Bush has violated the public's trust on a number of occasions, I personally don't see how anyone can take much of what he does with too much more than the proverbial grain of salt. November will be interesting.

Re:You shouldn't...

[mima1895]

If you should ever read a "history book" (that is information that has been downloaded, colated and printed out) you will find stuff like-- in 1807 Britan had taken the lead in the abolitionist movement and had banned slave trafic while threatening nations who still had slavery--at the same time it was acknowledged that "great numbers of of these (british) children are regularly bought and sold" on the streets of English cities. Now I ask you just how far is that from....... In 2006 the United States fights war to give Civil Rights to downtrodden people ..........while on the streets of the US civil rights are ???????? Well Duhhh--

The summary is right on

[tacokill]

in order to assuage the public's privacy concerns

Yep, that's pretty much the only reason for this. To "assuage". Not, mind you, to take any action or actually do anything. But to make people feel better about it through persuasion and talk.

Par for the course in my book. This administration pays a lot of lip service to a lot of things that they don't actually give a damn about. And this is yet another example of it.



Actions speak louder than words.

What should we believe here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what should we believe here? I am not sure
exactly what the Bush administration is trying to accomplish,
while they decry that "civil liberties" are being taken away, yet at the
same time they seem to be doing most of the censorship themselves.

Do we believe them this time? Personally, I would like to see evidence,
if we are to believe the continual stream of rhetoric that comes out
daily from the Bush administration.

What exactly is it that they are trying to accomplish?
To believe that they have no motives behind moves like this...
Can we continue to believe this rhetoric?

Too funny

[Anonymous Coward]

He reports to Negroponte who was running death squads in Central America back then. I guess they must have a lot of things to discuss about the old days.

Tobacco company analogy

[linuxbz]

Somehow this makes me think of how I feel every time I see one of those anti-smoking ads created by a tobacco company. It MIGHT do some good, but you absolutely know the tobacco company didn't do it to really try to get people to stop smoking.

Is he going to be..

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

a REAL Civil Liberties Protection person or just a good actor at it? You know much like Gonzales is supposed be an Attorney General.

Expecting a conservative to mod me down in 3...2....1...

Re:Is he going to be..

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because there's lots of THOSE on liberaldot.

Re:Is he going to be..

[Hard_Code]

Oh yeah, Gonzales is a good actor. He acts like an incompetent and feckless yes man.

Re:Is he going to be..

[cmburns69]

Expecting a conservative to mod me down in 3...2....1...

I think you've forgotten that this is /.

Re:Is he going to be..

[Anonymous Coward]

No expect a neo-conservative to mod you down. Those of us in the Ron Paul Libertarian Conservative camp would mod you up

Re:Is he going to be..

[ted_rust]

I don't think there's much risk of a conservative modding you down, but it's a great deal more likely that a neo-con might.

Unitary Executive

[Bob3141592]

The WSJ reports that the Bush administration has appointed a Civil Liberties Protection Officer in order to assuage the public's privacy concerns.

Under the Bush doctrine of Unitary Executive, this posting is a contradiction in terms and not just useless but completely meaningless. The "Officer" will be implicitely or explicitely prohibitied from taking any corrective action against anyone in the executive branch, along the same lines that the EPA cannot sure the Department of Defense to clean up depleted uranium dust because both are agents of the executive, and the president cannot sue himself. ridiculous, but that's what it is.

Now, who are the ones in government trampling the hardest on civil liberties?

The Wrong Way Around

[Anonymous Coward]

What's up with this notion that the goverment is supposed to protect civil liberties? The government has no such concerns. The tendency is that a government will seek the expansion of its powers. The Constitution was written to limit this. It is *our* job, we citizens (and the press which in the US has failed miserably), to protect our civil liberties.

Re:The Wrong Way Around

[belg4mit]

No, it's everyone's job. It's humanities nature to lie, cheat and steal,
murder, rape and mame... that does not mean it is only the government's
job to curtail this.

Re:The Wrong Way Around

[belg4mit]

s/ie/y/;

At first I thought...

[Perseid]

...that it said Alex Jones. Now THAT would have been a news headline.

homeland security, part 2

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy will realize that his job has little influence and won't make any difference. He will either refuse to waste taxpayer money and quit in disgust, or continue collecting a paycheck for doing nothing and have no problem with that.

He is going to be incredibly effective!!!!

[SlappyBastard]

Think about it; the Bushies live in bizarro world:

Clear Skies Initiative: let factories pollute more.
No Child Left Behind: helped schools hide minority test scores.
Operation Iraqi Freedom: DUCK MOTHERFUCKER! has become Iraq's national motto.

The Bush administration has been living in Opposite Day for years.

So... A Civil Liberties officer is going to become the head of America's newest brownshirt organization and be highly effective.

Otherwise, why would they cite his hands-on experience dealing with totalitarian methods as if it were a selling point.

If they really wanted to convince us he was serious about civil liberties, he would appoint Larry Flynt or better yet have Hunter S. Thompson brought back from the dead.

The new civil liberties director would be a hard-living, foul-mouth, drug-addicted, woman-grabbing, ass-slapping, hyperactive pervert driving the biggest, meanest gas-guzzling straight-line Cadillac he could find from the car lot nearest to his last traffic accident.

Re:He is going to be incredibly effective!!!!

[fonetik]

The new civil liberties director would be a hard-living, foul-mouth, drug-addicted, woman-grabbing, ass-slapping, hyperactive pervert driving the biggest, meanest gas-guzzling straight-line Cadillac he could find from the car lot nearest to his last traffic accident.

But then us Californians would have to find a new Governor. Sorry, that should be "Kuh-lee-for-nee-anns".

Re:He is going to be incredibly effective!!!!

[ClamIAm]

have Hunter S. Thompson brought back from the dead.

I haven't read much of Thompson at all, but even so, to this I say hell yes.

Re:He is going to be incredibly effective!!!!

[WilliamSChips]

The Bush administration has been living in Opposite Day for years.

You have committed thoughtcrime. Doubleplusungood.

Mirror of LA Times article

[SoCalChris]

Here's a mirror of the LA Times article.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022006R.shtml

Privacy Guardian Is Still a Paper Tiger
By Richard B. Schmitt
The Los Angeles Times

Monday 20 February 2006

A year after its creation, the White House civil liberties board has yet to do a single day of work.

Washington - For Americans troubled by the prospect of federal agents eavesdropping on their phone conversations or combing through their Internet records, there is good news: A little-known board exists in the White House whose purpose is to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are protected in the fight against terrorism.

Someday, it might actually meet.

Initially proposed by the bipartisan commission that investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was created by the intelligence overhaul that President Bush signed into law in December 2004.

More than a year later, it exists only on paper.

Foot-dragging, debate over its budget and powers, and concern over the qualifications of some of its members - one was treasurer of Bush's first campaign for Texas governor - has kept the board from doing a single day of work.

On Thursday, after months of delay, the Senate Judiciary Committee took a first step toward standing up the fledgling watchdog, approving the two lawyers Bush nominated to lead the panel. But it may take months before the board is up and running and doing much serious work.

Critics say the inaction shows the administration is just going through the motions when it comes to civil liberties.

"They have stalled in giving the board adequate funding. They have stalled in making appointments," said Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.). "It is apparent they are not taking this seriously."

The Sept. 11 commission also has expressed reservations about the commitment to the liberties panel.

"We felt it was absolutely vital," said Thomas H. Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey who led the commission. "We had certainly hoped it would have been up and running a long time ago."

The inaction is especially noteworthy in light of recent events. Some Republicans joined Democrats to delay renewal of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act because of civil liberties concerns. And the disclosure in December that Bush approved surveillance of certain US residents' international communications without a court order has caused bipartisan dismay in Congress.

"Obviously, civil liberties issues are critically important, and they have been to this president, especially after 9/11," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, adding that the White House had moved expeditiously to establish the board. "We do not formally nominate until we are through the background investigation and the full vetting. It takes time to present those nominations to the Senate. But now that they have been confirmed, that is a good thing."

The board chairwoman is Carol E. Dinkins, a Houston lawyer who was a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. A longtime friend of the Bush family, she was the treasurer of George W. Bush's first campaign for governor of Texas, in 1994, and co-chair of Lawyers for Bush-Cheney, which recruited Republican lawyers to handle legal battles after the November 2004 election.

Dinkins, a longtime partner in the Houston law firm of Vinson & Elkins, where Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales once was a partner, has specialized in defending oil and gas companies in environmental lawsuits.

Foremost among her credentials, she told Senate Judiciary Committee members in a response to their questions, was the two years she spent as deputy attorney general in President Reagan's Justice Department. There, she said, she had to weigh civil liberties concerns while overseeing domestic surveillance and counter-intelligence cases.

The board vice chairman is Alan

The real reason

[Guppy06]

With McClellan kicked to the curb, the administration has to find some other fool for that thankless job. This new position allows one person to focus exclusively on denying and/or declining comment on civil rights abuses, while the new press secretary can focus more on denying and/or declining comment on other topics, like corruption, nuking Iran, etc.

Re:The real reason

[Expert Determination]

With McClellan kicked to the curb my sig is out of date. Never mind, sigs are ten a penny and I'll find another one.

Now it is time to start worrying.

[www.sorehands.com]

When Bush appoints someone to protect our rights, we know we are going to lose alot more.

Hooray !!! We're free, thanks to our new ...

[novado]

Well, I, for one, welcome our new sub-Intelligence Civil Liberties Overl ....

no, wait ....

Fox in the henhouse

[MECC]

So the fox appoints a cat to protect the hens from the fox...

Re:Fox in the henhouse

[hyfe]

In a fight with a cornered cat and a fox, I'd put my money on the cat. Every single time.

.. this is more like the wolves appointing a bloody cow to protect the sheep.

Re:Fox in the henhouse

[Duhavid]

At least he is a hepcat.

Re:Fox in the henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, you insult the fox by comparing him with Bush, and you insult the cat by thinking it would do something someone else tells it to. :)

The Bureau of Civil Liberties

[955301]

Anyone who has a glimmer of hope about this, forget it. Here's a little summary of a comparable establishment, the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I was astonished, but wikipedia is strangely neutral about their existence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Indian_Affa irs

But here is some of the truth behind them. They were established to placate the Native population and to ensure that they are permanently marginalized.

They have stolen revenue from them,
http://www.earthportals.com/Portal_Messenger/bia.h tml

they are incompetent and their existence is a keep-your-enemies-closer solution to future American-Native American relations. Just ask anyone who has contracted with them.

You know the what if Microsoft built cars joke? Here's the equivalent BIA joke:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0304/S00127.htm

Lastly, note that the name of the agency still reflects an old way of thinking - It ain't the Bureau of Native American Affiars, a symptom of what little regard is given to the North American Natives.

A Civil Liberties appointee will bear some painful resemblences and be used more for turning to the population and placating them about the administration rather than speaking on behalf of the population to the President.

This is business-as-usual.

Re:The Bureau of Civil Liberties

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't deny that Indians would be better off without the BIA in terms of not growing up dependant on the government. I have delt with them before on building projects for indians and haven't found them any worse than any other government agency.

Re:The Bureau of Civil Liberties

[Anonymous Coward]

Things are not as they once were grasshopper

Re:The Bureau of Civil Liberties

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a little summary of a comparable establishment, the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

They introduced colonists to Tobacco.
So we introduced them to Alcohol, Firearms, and now gambling.

--
The Native Americans got a better deal trading Manhattan for some beads.

Re:The Bureau of Civil Liberties

[slowbad]

Here's a little summary of a comparable establishment, the Bureau of Indian Affairs

At one point when $25,000 a year exceeded the average wage in the United States,
you could divide the budget for the Bureau by the number of Indians on reservations,
and it was nearly thirty thousand dollars per year per beneficiary.

Pretty meager reparations, but a family of four surely did not see $120,000 per year
or anything approaching even $12,000 a year of anything tangible.

Re:The Bureau of Civil Liberties

[An Onerous Coward]

This sounds a lot like the old, debunked rumor from back in the Reagan administration, about how there was a separate BIA caseworker for every caseworker being served.

I'm going to need a source on this.

Re:The Bureau of Civil Liberties

[955301]

Were you responsible for accounting? Are you aware of the complete lack of accounting oversight on the contract they had in 1998 to assess the condition of all facilities? In other words, they permitted the contractor to operate with little regard to the burn rate. It was only when the invoices started piling up that work was stopped and people started paying attention.

I point this particular one out because BIA is responsible for Native trust receivables. And yet they cannot manage the spending on a contract they issued!

The alternative is more proper - you don't put the wolves in charge of the hen house - The Native nations must be in charge of their own resources' receivables in order to prevent theft by the federal government. And that will never happen. And what happens when they create another revenue stream (i.e., casinos)? Our government representatives and lobbyists run a shell game on them and take their money.

Expenditures related to building facilities for the indians aren't where the rubber hits the road - it's revenue. Sure there can be contractor fraud, but that's nothing compared to fraud in the cash supply side.

Re:The Bureau of Civil Liberties

[Rob the Bold]

Lastly, note that the name of the agency still reflects an old way of thinking - It ain't the Bureau of Native American Affiars, a symptom of what little regard is given to the North American Natives.

I've worked with a number of "Native Americans", and each one told me that he/she preferred the term "Indian". I didn't argue the point, I just referred to my colleagues as they wished to be referred to. I'm just saying that not every single Native American prefers that appelation. Maybe it's regional, I don't know.

BTW, the American Indian Movement still goes by that name. http://www.aimovement.org/

Re:The Bureau of Civil Liberties

[955301]

It's not that I'm pointing it out for political correctness; rather, there exist a group of people in India called Indians. I can't pretend to know the reasons your collegues prefer Indian - I guess it's cause Native American is surrounded by empty placating gestures. But Native or even American make more sense to me than Indian.

And at least "American Indian" is a little more clear. Compare the Bureau of Indian Affairs versus Bureau of American Indian Affairs.

Re:The Bureau of Civil Liberties

[Bob Uhl]

'Native American' is also a stupid phrase, because most of us who live in this country are native Americans. What most of us are not is aborigines, which is the proper term for the aboriginal inhabitants of this continent.

The person appointed

[hackwrench]

Double good job appointing someone who's expectation of civil rights has been lowered, and then spinning it as if it will help him do his job. Just about anything from his perspective would be an improvement, and as you know, these days, an improvement is a job well done.

Re: That was quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, Godwin's law already???

Branches

[sterno]

You know, I thought the whole oversight thing was why we had that other branch of government. You know that one with all the talking people that pass laws that the President ignores? Yeah those guys, they should probably look into this.

Re:Branches

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, but that ship has sailed.

Per PATRIOT I and II (not to mention more legally murky Executive Orders), many of the potentially civil-rights violating activities the public are concerned about are illegal to discuss, e.g. a US financial institution forced to turn over records on an US citizen WITHOUT a warrant or subpoena are prohibited by federal law from disclosing this fact with anyone. Further, DOJ does not ever have to disclose that this tactic has been used, in trial or otherwise - that would compromise "sources and methods." So how exactly are we supposed to correct this when it officially "never happens"?

Don't get me started on the small issue of detaining US citizens on US soil for years without them being charged or allowed access to legal representation. As far a "checks and balances" goes, the US Supreme Court refused to issue a ruling on the Padilla case, with one opinion claiming that he "had no right to petition his government for a redress of grievances." The only thing that shocked me more than Judge Scalia's opinion was the lack of public outcry. Bit by bit, we are giving up the very channels that allow us to protest government violation of our liberties.

Even the most staunch Bush-admin supporter (as I am on some things) doesn't deny that these acts take place, only that they are situationally appropriate. I would respond there should be NO government actions that take place in the absence of oversight. Abuses have always gone on, but now we've begun to remove even the nominal "fig leaf" of their responsibility to the public.

Finally, even if you think this admin. has done a good job (no wait, hear me out!), I simply cannot believe that ANYBODY wants laws ripe with the potential for abuse by a future "bad" admin. Let's maintain a structure that in and of itself minimizes the potential for abuses and is not dependent on the moral character of any particular leadership.

When do isolated incidents become a pattern? Why even wait for a pattern of abuse to develop?

The first dominoe has fallen. How will you respond?

Re:Branches

[lgw]

The executive branch has substantial constitutional powers when it comes to fighting a war - and the legislative branch doesn't have the contitutionl power to modify those executive powers. You have to look to the judicial branch to step in and say "that crossed the line".

Personally, I don't care who listens in on my phone conversations as long as that person can't introduce what they hear as evidence in court. If somone needs to tap my international calls for reasons of military planning or whatever, they should feel free - no harm done to me or mine. I do worry, of course, that the executive branch won't stop there, that they'll use the same power to hand information over to internal law enforcement, and it's all down hill from there. That's why oversight is needed - a disinterested party should agree that my phone is bing tapped for purposes of military planning or whatever!

There's definitely a cost to national security when you restrict capabilities of the military or intelligence organizations, but that argument doesn't hold much water given there is already a system of secret courts in place to issue secret warrants for just such a circumstace, and thereby provide the oversight that prevents defense from becoming abuse. Listen to my calls all you want, once a judge has agreed that the target of the investigation is not a US citizen. While I've often supported Bush on other issues, the whole recent wiretapping scandal was just indefensible.

Re:Branches

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the whole oversight thing was why we had that other branch of government.

So what exactly are you saying, that it's perfectly alright for Bush to do whatever he wants until another branch calls him to task for it?

Bush and the leaders of Congress are on the same team. Both have shown they don't really care about the Constition and have no interest in checking themselves. Time will tell whose team the Supreme Court will end up on, though these days "Team Constitution" seems highly unlikely, especially with their second refusal to take on the case of the terro^Wmurde^Wconspirator, Jose Padilla, even after he sued the "right person" as per the first rejection. I guess waiting three years in jail to be charged with conspiracy to murder is as speedy as it needs to be to satisfy the speedy trial requirement.

Re:Branches

[killjoe]

Supposedly we also have the courts too. Unfortunately the courts have been packed with partisans who care more about their political party then the constitution of the citizenry. Look at FISA. This supposedly independent panel of judges turned into a kangroo court which simply rubber stamps whatever the executive branch wants. Despite (because?) this the executive branch decided to bypass them and got away with it because the congress critters care more about their party then the country.

It's lost people. That whole "governemt of the people, by the people" experiment set up a couple of hundred years ago has failed miserably.

Re:Branches

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we are largely in agreement, except we are not at War.

Neither my congressional representation nor yours has declared it. Because who would we declare it against? "Al-Qa'ida," you say. Fine, WHO are they? Where are they? Why not Hamas? Abu Sayff? Hez'b'allah? Chechens (woops they were "freedom fighters" until we wanted some Russian political support...flip-flop indeed.)

We don't know, so we've created a war on an -ism. They sure don't (or rather didn't) teach that at the National War College. History is filled with examples of why wars against ideas are doomed to fail.

"But we're obviously at war," you insist. Okay, fine. So what specific strategic goals constitute a victory in this War? What tactical actions would support said strategic direction? The exit-strategy-first line of reverse war planning doesn't even survive the most basic initial questions. Because we can't even describe what a victory might entail, we are doomed to eventually fail. By any objective definition, this is not a war, but a live-fire PR campaign.

All we have done is create an rhetoric-driven atmosphere of politico-speak that allows basically any action the Bush administration wants to pursue to fall under the umbrella of "War on Terror."
Where does it end? Despite all the talking heads, nobody knows and that gives birth to all the conspiracy theories that are also counterproductive.

Re:Branches

[Anonymous Coward]

That whole "governemt of the people, by the people" experiment set up a couple of hundred years ago has failed miserably.

No one is keeping you here. Feel free to leave and let some one who wants to be here have your job, money, lifestyle, freedom, etc. Move to China and give up the right to freely communicate. Give up the freedom to disagree like you are now.

Re:Branches

[Millenniumman]

Our "war on terrorism" is a war on the middle eastern extremist groups including those that you mentioned. It's not really a war on all terrorism, although that is certainly the most prevalent kind now. They are the people indoctrinating others to want to harm the West. They are in a lot of places, but are concentrated in the middle east where national governments allow them to exist. I don't think there is a problem with tapping phones, but it has to be warranted or not used as evidence in court. It should also be documented, even if those documents are not immediately released.

Re:Branches

[killjoe]

Right because my only choices are china and america right?

Anyway what makes you think the rest of the world wants americans to come live in their country? The standards for citizenship in modern first world countries are pretty rigid you know. You can't just show up on their doorstep and say "Hi I would like to move to your country and take advantage of your participarty democracy and free health care".

Re:Branches

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Mill, you don't seem to get it. You can drive a German Panzer division back to the Rhine. You can stop Cornwallis' Redcoats from taking Charleston. You can assert air superiority over Seoul.

You cannot, however, devise any meanigful tactical plan from keeping an undefined group of people who hate us from hating us.

And when you look into why they hate us, you see that their complaints are not wholly without merit.

Used to be Dept. of War...

[attemptedgoalie]

Sounded too scary, so Dept. of Defense was the new term.

Dept. of Peace is not far off.

In other news...

[AusIV]

Microsoft joins the OpenDocument alliance.

Wow

[Guysmiley777]

I can't believe they didn't just call it The Ministry of Love.

Just like DMCA, the PATRIOT Act or the Range Safety Act just because it has a happy feel-good name does not make it happy or feel-good.

Re:Wow

[OldSpiceAP]

I agree. The focus seems to be to make the people believe that the governemnt is out to help the people. They care so much that they will appoint someone to have a desk job to oversee the civil rights violations. Theoretically with checks and balances this shouldn't be necessary. A bill such as the Patriot Act, which is an absolute direct assault on the civil rights of Americans, should never get past congress.... unless it is printed at midnight and passed the following morning, meaning that no one has a chance to read it. Thats not a good excuse in my opinion. Someone should have stood up and said that the vote should wait till there had been adequate time for review, but none did. Republicans, Democrats, and others alike, voted in favor without so much as a thought. As a result the government can write its own warrents without a judge, break into my house to search it, steal things so it looks like a robbery, and then not tell me. "Who cares?" says the blinded people in favor of bills like the Patriot Act. "It is only a problem if you are doing something wrong." Actually, for one even if I'm not doing something wrong that doesn't mean I want my government spying on my private life. I don't want agents going through my wifes lingere drawer because I made a comment to a friend on the phone that mentioned Al Quada. These kinds of laws open greater doors for abuse, and that is an opportunity we already provide the government with far too often. I seriously doubt this person will have any profound effect on our civil liberties. The damage has already been done because our government failed us. Instead of using the tragity of 911 to unite the american people, it used it to gain more power through fear. THAT is a step towards totalitarianism in my opinion, and one that would be tough to take a step back from. Unless the American people quit being stupid enough to believe thet "Less Free = More Safe" then I fear that America is on a path of self destruction that may have dire consequences for the world as well.

Everyone is Searching for Something...

[digitaldc]

Alex Joel recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both armed soldiers and civilians alike would order his family out of their car to search it.

This is an ironic statement since he could he be talking about either Guatemala or Iraq.
Article with search pictures

From the article:

[FooAtWFU]

"There is no silver-bullet answer," he says of balancing privacy and national security. "There are actually a lot of silver BBs and if you put enough of those together in a coherent way, wrap it with good policy, procedures and training, then you can have the same impact as a silver bullet."

Insert your own joke here about silver birdshot pellets and quail-hunting expeditions...

Can someone see this dialogue?

[Opportunist]

"Dick, they're getting upset."
"Why?"
"Well, 'cause we pretty much snoop at them."
"So?"
"Well, ya know, the things 'bout land of free and ..."
"We already eliminated home of the brave, and they kinda liked it. So?"
"Well, it ain't good, ok? They might finally find out that we're not really working in their favor."
"Hmm. I know. We'll appoint someone to take care of civil liberties and observe it all."
"But ... wouldn't that kinda hurt us?"
"How so?"
"Well, if he's constantly telling us what we can't do?"
"Never said anything 'bout telling us what to do, did I? I said OBSERVE."
"And then?"
"No then. File a nice li'l report to be put into the big round storage under your desk."
"And what should that do?"
"Make them think that someone's taking care of liberty. While we take care of what's left of it."

Re:Can someone see this dialogue?

[rossifer]

Mod +1 "Sad but true"

Preciousssss...

[Valdrax]

"Any bests?"

Yesssss. The flithy bloggerssss gives uss the dirts. Filthy, fats bloggerssss....

This IS a joke (was:This is a joke right.)

[Anonymous Coward]

What is his job? On how to best trample them?

The joke is on the United States citizens that voted to put that loop and his lackeys in The White House TWICE.

this is why i come to slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly the kinda news that I come to /. for...errr...no...

Further

[TubeSteak]

It's useless because the man doesn't have subpoena powers and because he doesn't report to Congress.

These are problems because

1. No subpoena powers means he won't be able to force answers to uncomfortable questions
2. Not reporting to Congress essentially means that the man isn't accountable to "We the people"

Reading further into TFA, It seems to me that his job is partially going to involve enabling datamining in a more 'anonymous' fashion.

The technology works by allowing personal data to be anonymous and shared -- say to compare an airline passenger list and a terrorist-watch list -- with the government getting only data on the exact matches. This allows airlines, for example, to avoid having to turn over passenger data wholesale to the government.

Bush, Cheney & company seem to desperately want to track/datamine people. Even after the program was 'shut down', it turns out that it wasn't. It just got a name change & was shuffled around bureaucraticly. This looks to me like another attempt to legitimize that program.

Re:Further

[Bob Uhl]

Bush, Cheney & company seem to desperately want to track/datamine people.

Well, give that we are now in an age when a single man--or a small group of men--can kill thousands of others and destroy billions of dollars easily, I can see why they'd want to track people. I'm not saying that they're necessarily right to do so, or that if right they've gone about it in the proper way--but the impetus for their actions is quite clear.

Re:Further

[Moofie]

If by "impetus" you mean "plausible cover story", I agree completely.

It could be worse...

[Aqua_boy17]

They could have appointed someone from Yahoo.

*ducks*

Dont you mean... (was:In related news...)

[Lead Butthead]

Don't you mean "Donald Rumsfeld moved to head new ' Ministry of Peace'?" That's rather double double minus bad of you for misspelling the name of the ministry.

Re:Dont you mean... (was:In related news...)

[happyemoticon]

So that makes the Department of Homeland Security the Ministry of Love, AOL/Time Warner, Verizon and AT&T the Ministry of Truth, and Citibank the Ministry of Plenty.

By the way, the correct newspeak term is "Double double-plus ungood." Minus no longer exists in our vocabular, nor does bad, as ungood and unminus are much more structured and logical. Please report to the Ministry of Love immediately for reeducation.

Re:Dont you mean... (was:In related news...)

[ninjagin]

I think you mean "doubleplusungood", comrade.

Re:Dont you mean... (was:In related news...)

[spun]

You know it. "Bad" is a doubleplus ungood word. "Bad" can be used to criticize, and criticism is definitely doubleplus ungood.

Re:Dont you mean... (was:In related news...)

[dangitman]

Let the Eagle Soar!

Re:Dont you mean... (was:In related news...)

[ninjagin]

Aye! :-)

Displacing blame

[dustwun]

As others have pointed out this is to make the public feel better, but it does far more than that. It allows the president and his administration to continue to erode our freedom and blame the new guy for not sticking up for us. It should be the president sticking up for our freedoms... and congress... and the supreme court... and the general public.

Re: That was quick

[955301]

"However, as noted, the exceptions to Godwin's Law include the invocation of the Hitler comparison in a positivist manner that does not have a normative dimension." - wikipedia

nope, it was a legitimate comparison.

Sarcasm Aside...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm worried. Wait, no, that's an understatement. I'm scared badly of what is going on. I remember what things were like in 1983 with the USSR and this is much, much more frightening. Here we have a situation where a man is honestly considering the use of nuclear weapons on another nation that has, to date, not attacked anyone directly on United States soil. If he decides to nuke Iran, then all hell will break loose. I believe that this article does an excellent job of painting the picture of what the first day of the war with Iran will be like.

I'm even worried that the administration would deliberately sabotage something to cause another 9/11 type even in the near future. One hypothesis I overheard was that a boat with a low-yield nuke would be detonated off of the coast of Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Miami, with claims that Iran caused it. I will be taking a cruise towards the beginning of June and don't like even contemplating that idea.

Sorry, just had to get this off my chest anonymously...

Re:Sarcasm Aside...

[Rei]

Want to be more disturbed? Read about the new 385m$ internment camps under construction in the US.

Re:Sarcasm Aside...

[lgw]

The plan is not to nuke Iran, the plan is to use nuclear weapons against Iran, just as we used nuclear weapons aginst the USSR (and they used them against us) for decades. "Leaks" about plans to nuke Iran are just one way in which we use these weapons.

And, scary though MAD was, this continuing use of nuclear weapons has done a remarkable job of preventing shooting wars between major powers.

Actually detonating a nuclear weapon is the least poductive way in which we use it.

Re:Sarcasm Aside...

[Wavicle]

I believe that this article does an excellent job of painting the picture of what the first day of the war with Iran will be like.

I think that article is hilarious in that it blatantly ignores how Iraq was rolled in so short a time - twice. I'm as anti-Iran-war as the next guy, but the far-left nutjobs who write this crap are just pathetic.

1) The fighter jets don't take off before dawn, they take off before sunset.
2) The first jets to arrive are ultra-low radar cross section bombers.
3) When the air defense systems are turned on, anti-radiation weapons start neutralizing their radar stations.
4) By mid-morning, you're getting hit by the 10th strike, not the third.
5) Planes stationed near the gulf were unable to take off to down the tankers because every runway within 30 minutes flight time to the persian gulf was pitted with craters from anti-pavement weapons.
6) The anti-ship missiles managed to get within 2km of american ships before the phalanx close-in weapon systems, firing 75 20mm shells per second ripped the missiles to shreds, sending them splashing into the persian gulf.
7) The torrent of missiles lasted barely 10 minutes before the launching sites were neutralized and less than 1 in 10 managed to hit a high-value target since the missile guidance system was poor and the Patriot PAC-3 batteries took out nearly all those able to get sufficiently close.

This is doubleplus ungood

[humungusfungus]

Appoint all the officers you like.
I won't feel my civil liberties are protected until we have a Ministry of Love.

No more lost sleep for Bush.

[moxley]

Wow, I am sure that Bush and company will finally be sleep soundly again. I am sure that their intense worry over our fundamental rights was awful for them to deal with; hell I bet that their anxiety over possible lost liberties was palpable...Probably way worse than spending a year at Gitmo.

- cause you know, Bush...he's a caring man.
  - And a Christian....that's how I know he's good. Nobody would ever say they are a Christian who believes in freedom and then do all kinds of things that go against everything America and the civilized world stand for...No way.

People can either be good or bad - the TV tells me so.

The Post Is Insightful

[Phat_Tony]

I'm afraid that the post will prove surprisingly accurate. It doesn't say that he's appointed a Civil Liberties Protection Officer in order to prevent the administration from trampling our civil liberties. It doesn't say that he's been appointed to verify that our civil liberties aren't being trampled. He's been appointed to "assuage the public's privacy concerns."

Coincidence?

[Chagatai]

I find it interesting that many of Alex Jones' videos are on Google Video's top 100 list. Check out the number 4 video. Loose Change 2nd Edition, a great video that discusses the logical fallacies with 9/11. I sense that there is a change going on in the minds of Americans slowly but surely.

Re:Coincidence?

[pi_rules]

Heh... at least I'm not the only one that thought it would have really been news if it was Alex Jones! Jones didn't do Loose Change though -- that's somebody else but very closely mirrors Jones' thinking.

His 911 piece is 911: Martial Law: Rise of the Police State

Far more entertaining than Loose Change, but jumps around to various topics, 911 being sorta being in the middle of it all.

Good guys from the bad

[orb_fan]

"Alex Joel recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both armed soldiers and civilians alike would order his family out of their car to search it."

Actually it's easy to tell the difference - good guys would stop your car or search it without probable cause or a warrent.

Re:Good guys from the bad

[orb_fan]

sorry - Actually it's easy to tell the difference - good guys wouldn't stop your car or search it without probable cause or a warrent.

Re:Good guys from the bad

[Guysmiley777]

No no. You had it right the first time according to the George W. Bush Theory of Fascist Government.

After all, if you weren't doing anything wrong why would you have a problem with armed men stopping and searching your car without probable cause? If you think that's wrong it's only because at some point you are PLANNING on doing something wrong.

How do you live with yourself? Planning to do evil things. You are an Evil Doer and an Enemy of the State! By thinking the government could ever possibly do anything wrong you have given up your rights. Hope you like Cuba...

Scapegoat

[mormop]

Current situation:

The state is snooping too much and is acting in an oppressive and unconstitutional way. Rumsfeld, Bush, whoever must be held responsible. Someone must resign.

Future situation:

The state is snooping too much and is acting in an oppressive and unconstitutional way.
The Civil-Liberties Officer isn't doing his job properly and he must resign.

Appointing people to posts where they appear to have free reign while their strings are pulled from the shadows puts a superb buffer zone between the public and those who really make the decisions. It worked for Tony Blair for years and it's only since he's decided that he's invincible and dropped his guard, claiming responsibility for good things that unexpectedly turned to shit, that he's become so distrusted.

Embrace, extend, extinguish.

[Anonymous Coward]

Software or civil liberties, the process is the same.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish.

[WilliamSChips]

It's not extinguish. It's EX-TER-MI-NATE! (See sig.)

Time for GOP damage control already!

[Anonymous Coward]

With only 6 months and change until the congressional elections, it's time for the Republicans to start looking like they're Doing Something about things the citizenry don't like, so people will be suckered into re-electing them.

The GOP is scared shitless right now that the general dislike/distrust of Bush will get worse and lead to a "throw the bums out" sentiment around election day, which could mean the Democrats might assume control of the House and/or Senate. And if the Republicans no longer control Congress so they can prevent all the investigations of Bush administration wrongdoing, the whole house of cards is likely to come crashing down-- can you say "impeachment"?

This is just the first of the Republican Jedi Mind Tricks. Expect plenty more as November draws closer. There will be lots of noise on "morality" issues to bring out the Republican-voting, bible-thumping mouth-breathers that the GOP has come to rely on. I bet we'll even see an Orange Alert (remember those?) or two in the fall to scare up (literally) some more votes for the status quo.

I disagree

[GuloGulo]

"It ain't the Bureau of Native American Affiars, a symptom of what little regard is given to the North American Natives."

I think that's more of a case of little regard being given to current social convention.

But, while you're ranting, what does the "C" in NAACP stand for? Why haven't they changed that?

Probably for the same reason. There's no legitimate reason to change it. And no, hurting your feelings doesn't count as a legitimate reason.

Re:I disagree

[955301]

But, while you're ranting, what does the "C" in NAACP stand for?

Not a valid counterexample - there isn't a country called Colorinia with which to confuse the name, while there is an India. The point wasn't the PC argument magnet you seemed to be attracted too - the point is stale terminology not updated to do negligence and apathy.

It has nothing to do with offensive terms - to paraphrase Frank Zappa - they're words. People offend, not words. The point is they're not Indian.

In other News

[Anonymous Coward]

The Klingon Empire has announced that they will put a counselor on every Warship in the fleet.

Like Janet Reno in Waco or against Elian Gonzalez?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually the job of the AG to do what the President wants - since it's part of the executive branch. And since the President pretty much hires and can fire the AG.

Kinda interesting that those Branch Davidians were hoarding weapons because they feared the government was going to come after them. Yeah, it's a chicken-and-egg problem, but it's still interesting to note that.

And given how close the election in FL was in 2000, you have to figure that the Elian Gonzalez fiasco cost Gore quite a few Cuban-American votes in that state. Ironic, no? If Reno hadn't sent in the stormtroopers, we'd now have President Gore. Dang, that hurts.

Two Words

[zoloto]

Bull-FUCKING-shit

Correction

[harvey_peterson]

Posted by Zonk on Thursday April 20, @12:08PM

You misspelled "April 1"

Has to be said:

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome the new civil liberties overlord.

Crazytalk

[Tibor the Hun]

Comarades!
I have grown up in a communist country, and let me tell you!
All problems can be solved by appointing executives with shiny titles to fix them! All of them!

Remember, and repeat after me:
All animals are equal!

Or maybe...

[Tuirn]

Bushit?

Who TF is Alex Joel and why is he qualified?

[m33p]

From the guy's own BIO:

Alex Joel is the information technology and e-business attorney for Marriott International, Inc. He is responsible for providing legal support on all technology and e-business related matters at Marriott on a worldwide basis. In addition to handling Marriott's information technology and telecommunications transactions (e.g., technology procurement, consulting engagements), Alex's legal responsibilities include: e-commerce, security, privacy, e-business ventures, online marketing, electronic standards and policies, and web site development and operations.

Before joining Marriott in April 1995, Alex was an attorney with the Washington, D.C. law firm of Shaw Pittman, where he spent three years negotiating technology transactions, primarily focusing on outsourcing deals. Before that, he was a captain in the U. S. Army Judge Advocate General's Corps, where he served first as a prosecutor, then as criminal defense counsel, and finally as a medical malpractice attorney.

Alex received his law degree magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School in 1987, where he was on the Michigan Law Review. He received his undergraduate degree magna cum laude from Princeton University in 1984.

Alex is a frequent speaker on the legal issues arising from doing business on the Internet.

As if the following quotes from the WSJ article were's bad enough:

When the NSA wiretapping program began, Mr. Joel wasn't working for the intelligence office, but he says he has reviewed it and finds no problems. The classified nature of the agency's surveillance work makes it difficult to discuss, but he suggests that fears about what the government might be doing are overblown.

"Although you might have concerns about what might potentially be going on, those potentials are not actually being realized and if you could see what was going on, you would be reassured just like everyone else," he says.

Re:Who TF is Alex Joel and why is he qualified?

[Spaceman40]

"Although you might have concerns about what might potentially be going on, those potentials are not actually being realized and if you could see what was going on, you would be reassured just like everyone else," he says.

You can't be serious. He's a lawyer and he says this?

If what is really going on isn't what might potentially be going on, why not get rid of the potentially? Give a system just as much power as it needs, but no more. Of course, some might say that this system doesn't need any power...

Some more...

[babbling]

US Peace-keeping force sent to Iran.
Guantanamo Bay Hotel checks in new guests who are a bit unsure about exactly how long they will be staying for.
US companies flock to Iraq to provide much-needed services.
US citizens get first-class treatment with wonderful new voice-recognition systems.
Terrorist suspect shot in subway before even getting a chance to plan the terror attack.

That would be a bummer

[SlappyBastard]

I'm from PA. We don't have interesting people here.

Our idea of a celebrity gubernatorial candidate is Lynn Swann.

Who the hell in the GOP picks these guys?

Signs and portents ...

[the bluebrain]

If a democratically elected government is so far removed from the sovereign (which, in case anyone needs reminding, is the people), that it needs a "court jester" to tell it when it is acting counter to the interests of the sovereign, something has gone wrong, a while back.

So he is not the devil's advocate....

[metoc]

which by definition is one who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.

So that would make him the Bush Administrations Person in charge of telling the public what a good job they are doing on Civil Rights. Just like Rumsfeld lets us know how well things are going in Iraq, Rice on Foreign relations, etc.

Another paper tiger

[Anonymous Coward]

What a fucking joke. First let us see due process, the Geneva convention upheld and bring back habeas corpus. Then we'll talk.

FTFF

2 things

[koan]

When ever someone has to say "at least they" then you know things are bad, also what makes you think this guy will be able to do anything of value? The Bush administration is designed against that, and I have yet to see anything good come out of this administration...oh sure they tell you all the great things they are doing...but look a little closer and you may find your self saying "at least they...."

I don't want my concerns to be assuaged ...

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

... I want them to be addressed.

Exerpts from the PR package...

[Infonaut]

The President is addressing concerns in a customer-facing fashion, adding value to the governmental process by streamlining customer inquiries by routing them to an appropriate effectuating center, where Constitution-based matters can be processed, administered, and serviced in a timely fashion. This is just one component of the President's full suite of customer-oriented governmental solutions. This patent-pending VAGUE (Value Added Government Unravelling Exercises) offering is a full-featured, soup-to-nuts package that delivers more value than previous open government methodologies. Tremendous price discounts are available to high-income organizations and individuals.

The way the founders meant for it to work

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Read the Federalist Papers sometime. They're the design documentation for the Constitution and utterly fascinating.

What was *supposed* to happen was that the states were supposed to protect their citizens against any hypothetical tyranny by the Federal government. If not out of good will, then out of jealousy for their own powers.

That's a dead letter now.

Re:The way the founders meant for it to work

[raider_red]

It was a nice theory. The problem with all systems of checks and balances though is that they do absolutely no good when the groups guarding each other have the same goal: to increase the power of government, and to do whatever else they damn well please.

Obviously Emperor Bush is a magician...

[nutrock69]

... creating a well-publicized office that does nothing more than distract attention.

Misdirection: A classic stage-magician method. Watch the left hand say things like "we need to be careful of civil liberties", while the right hand performs the amazing "disappearing civil liberties" trick.

I am in awe...

But a senior henhouse official,

[dpbsmith]

speaking off the record, said "I, for one, welcome our new canid overlords."

Just more bureacratic growth, nothing to see here

[danpsmith]

This is just creating another position in the government and appointing someone (qualified for once) to sit in it. It doesn't mean that they care any more than they did yesterday about civil liberties, and it doesn't change anything. This guy will protect my civil liberties in about the same capacity that "Homeland Security" secures the homeland...in title alone.

If Bush were really concerned about civil liberties he wouldn't have the stance he does on snooping on citizens...

You want to make this position really seem like it's doing something, have them actually start action against Bush for spying on citizens or conspiring to wiretap the Internet. But nothing truly groundbreaking like that will ever happen.

This is a good way for the Bush administration to pander to the public and have a press conference pretending like they care about your freedom, and I bet every news organization will lick it up like the true lapdogs they are.

MOD PARENT UP

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Damn good post. Thank you!

Job Qualifications:

[Malor]

Job Qualification: You must be presentable, affable, and be able to lie brazenly while keeping a straight face.

Re:Job Qualifications:

[sethstorm]

Wouldnt that be the standard requirement for any politician?

freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

FREEDOM minus Privacy minus God minus.... well you get the idea.

Are you still FREE?

Umm... Wrong it Means "Separation of Powers"

[HighOrbit]

First, Executive Agencies can and do fine each other under civil enforcement actions. For example see this EPA site about enforcing against other Federal (Executive) agencies http://www.epa.gov/compliance/federalfacilities/en forcement/index.html.

Secondly, there are these things call "Executive Orders". They are official orders from the President to all the Executive Agencies. If any Federal Officer runs afoul of an Executive Order, he can expect to be disciplined within the agency. Entire agencies have been "called on the carpet" by the Office of Managment and Budget.

For some strange reason, ther term "Unitary Executive" gets all the left-wing crazies bent out of shape, but it really means "separation of powers". What is Executive is wholly (and solely) Executive. What is Judicial is wholly (and solely) Judicial. What is Legislative is wholly (and solely) Legislative. Unitary Executive means that all executive functions are performed within the executive branch and are subject to the Executive Branch's chain of command. No branch may meddle in the internal affairs and running of the others. This is basic constitutional law in the US. The term "Unitary Executive" is primarily used to argue that the creation of "independent prosecutors" are unconstitutional , since prosecution is an executive function and all executive functions fall under the President and his appointed officers (like the Attorney General), while "independent prosecutors" are appointed by and answerable to Judges (thus running afoul of separation of powers).

Re:Umm... Wrong it Means "Separation of Powers"

[Johnny5000]

Unitary Executive means that all executive functions are performed within the executive branch and are subject to the Executive Branch's chain of command.

I get it.
What I don't get it why the fox-watching-the-henhouse is a good idea.

What happens when the executive branch chain of command fails to exercise proper oversight over failures within the executive branch? Where's the checks-and-balances, where the other branches of government keep each other in line?

Re:Umm... Wrong it Means "Separation of Powers"

[HighOrbit]

That's when Congress holds a hearing and cuts off the money to the offending program.

Re:Umm... Wrong it Means "Separation of Powers"

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, and this "hearing" never takes place because of the imbalance in Congress toward the Executive Branch.
 
Catch 22.

He SHOULD appoint head of ACLU

[dj42]

Why not appoint the guy that runs the ACLU?

From the ACLU website:

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

        * Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
        * Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
        * Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
        * Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 500,000 members and supporters. We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state.

The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding. Learn more about joining the ACLU.

Re:He SHOULD appoint head of ACLU

[WilliamSChips]

We're talking about Bush here. The diminishing freedom-hating(but "freedom"-loving), SUV-driving, redneck base would be in revolution if he appointed an ACLUer.

Its also his job to issue Social Security Checks

[HighOrbit]

Its also his job as head of the executive branch to see that the Treasury Department issues Social Security checks. Do you think he personally signs every one of them or do you think he appoints somebody else to do it?

Re:Like Janet Reno in Waco or against Elian Gonzal

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. The AG's job is to enforce the law. Neither of the cases you mention had anything to do with the Presidents wants. They were straightforward legal matters in which the Justice Department simply enforced the law. In the Waco instance they did so clumsily, resulting in uneccesary loss of life.

1984

[steve9983]

What's next, a "Ministry of Peace" to oversee our war efforts?

Wikipedia article

[dreddnott]

I've created a wikipeda article for this guy - I hope somebody here can de-POV it for me. This is my first post on /. in around five or six YEARS. You guys are entertaining. There's not much I could add to this discussion - the 1984 references are all taken, enough people have taken umbrage at the intellectually offensive 'assuage' comment in TFA, etc.

More turd polish?

[clevershark]

The only time Bush has ever "reached out" beyond his circle of friends is to borrow credibility from a poor sap who will inevitably be chewed up and spit out whenever it's convenient for the Administration to do so.

In short, I feel sorry for this guy. He may be convinced that he'll be able to do good, but then so were Colin Powell and Paul O'Neill.

Just what they needed

[tinkerton]

For that job they just had to hire someone who couldn't tell the good guys from the bad.

Title with no power?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can hire a whole host of people to fix the economy (and call them the Federal Reserve or some such nonsense) but its not going to make a lick of difference if you don't give them some sort of legitimate power (like a tax on loans).

Here in Texas, we have a governor named Rick Perry but he doesn't do anything so is he really governor? When the Environmental Protection Agency isn't given any power to protect the enviornment, its just an office with chairs and people in it doing crossword puzzles?

what a relief!

[Anonymous Coward]

We're going to have a Civil Liberties Protection Officer? What a relief!

By the way, under the Bush administration there's also this group called the Environmental Protection Agency. That's why the U.S. takes such good care of the environment. And let's not forget about the Central Intelligence Agency, that makes sure the Administration is basing its decisions on the latest intelligence. And, of course, the Justice Department always helps out with nice memos on how to best torture confessions out of suspects. I have no doubt that this Civil Liberties Protection Officer will work out fine.

"assuaged"?

[TrnsltLife]

We don't need our concerns over civil liberties assuaged. We need our civil liberties protected. By ourselves, not by the government, or this will turn into a 1984-esque "Ministry of Civil Liberties.".
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Oversight is SO last century!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, with detention and trials done in secret how can we seriously claim any real oversight is left? We can keep an eye on the IRS, FDA (ha!), etc. but human rights apparantly don't rank too high. I would have thought that effectively "erasing" American cits and pretending they never existed would have been one of the last things to happen; instead it's one of the first. I guess cases like Padilla are just too surreal to believe, yet serve as precedent for similar treatment in the future.

I grant you he's a turd who by all accounts should go to prison for a long time. But only after a trial with due process!!!!

Behold the infancy of a crypto-fascist police state!

In related GNUs, Dracula praises chef Boyar-dee

[NRAdude]

Vlad Dracul appraises chef Boyardee for the new flavor of steaked Sausages(R), commenting favorably to the chef "Nun in my life have brought such flavor with only a a few minutes of preparation. And I thought the flesh needed to be tenderized by a week of pulverizing and seasoning in the sun. I may as well buy all the Boyardee in their stocks and bonds for more preserved pleasure without salt noticable in other branded(tm) Boyardee."

War?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...there is already a system of secret courts in place to issue secret warrants for just such a circumstace, and thereby provide the oversight that prevents defense from becoming abuse. Listen to my calls all you want, once a judge has agreed that the target of the investigation is not a US citizen."

Actually, there were even provisions for the targeting of US citizens before all this nonsense, and rightfully so. With proper checks and balances (warrants and sobpoenas), I have little problem with these actions.

The fact is that there is very little that PATRIOT, etc. allow now that was not allowed before. They serve to remove the oversight/checks and allow the executive branch to act unilaterally - which is treasonously wrong.

BTW - check and see how many times a federal judge ever refused to issue a warrant (FISA or pre-FISA) for IC or DOD surveillance of a US cit with alleged terrorism connections BEFORE the Patriot Act. Very revealing....

Re:War?

[lgw]

The fact is that there is very little that PATRIOT, etc. allow now that was not allowed before.

With very few exceptions there were no police powers added in the Patriot Act - the important change is that you can now call someone "a terrorist" instead of "a drug dealer" to bypass their rights. It's up to the courts now to reign this stuff in. As I say above, I'm OK with the intention, but there always needs to be some system of oversight (and from a different branch, not some apointee of the person being overseen!).

Re:War?

[skuzzlebutt]

You don't even have to call them a terrorist...there is a political corruption trial going on here in Las Vegas, where some local officials took bribes from stip club owners. The FBI just admitted a couple of weeks ago to using the PATRIOT act to get financial data on the accused, simply because it was faster than getting a warrant, and because, well, they could. No implied terrorism, but our leaders gave the justice system a useful tool and the right to use it, so they do.

(sorry, full article has been archived by the review-journal)

FBI confirms Patriot Act's use in corruption probe

By ADRIENNE PACKER REVIEW-JOURNAL. Federal authorities confirmed in court Wednesday that they used the Patriot Act to access bank records while investigating alleged political corruption involving former Clark County commissioners and strip club owner Michael Galardi.. The Patriot Act, enacted after Sept. 11, 2001, as a tool to fight terrorism, included provisions that allowed authorities to access personal financial records more easily.. During the federal trial against former county...

Re:War?

[Anonymous Coward]

"3 Insightful" ??

You simply repeated the exact point of the post you quoted.

Bizarre.

Let's pick on James Connaughton

[Valdrax]

It is one thing to be knowledgeable of the business. There are plenty of principled people who have worked in such businesses before. It's another thing entirely to be a shill for irresponsible behavior by such businesses.

I'll pick James Connaughton for my example. This man is a lawyer who has lobbied on behalf of coal, chemical, and utility companies to avoid having to pay to clean up Superfund sites that they created. One of these companies was GE, which has been responsible for creating the largest number of Superfund sites of any other company in the nation. They've also pumped a ton of money into lobbying against having to pick up the bill for toxic waste dumping and against the designation of sites as toxic waste dumps in the first place. A real good cause there, huh?

He also helped head up the ISO 14000 standard for environmental policy which has no real requirements beyond minimal compliance with the law and no external audit requirement. It's toothless and basically just a free sticker you can apply to your company to claim that you care about the environment without actually having to do so.

Once in office, he helped lead the charge to prevent the government from tightening standards on arsenic in the water supply. He has been a passionate advocate against any policy to reduce greenhouse gasses and has been implicated in censoring language in research studies that support the existence of global warming. He's been a supporter of the "Clean Skies" initiative which destroys a lot of the Clean Air Act's protective provisions. He likes to push for "volunatry standards" a.k.a. "not having to do anything about a problem."

He's just one example. His expertise has entirely been in helping business pursue profits at the expense of public health. His kind of industry experience the people can do without.

What flight number is that DEPARTMENT OF PEACE?

[NRAdude]

Whenever I hear of the word "department", I think of a frisbee with a doll-house built ontop of it; and everyone is just throwing that frisbee (hereinafter called "Real Estate(c)") to someone they value has more credibility (hereinafter called "Mortgage"); and when someone with a shotgun sees that lie in the air, they burn down the dollhouse just before the Man destroys what he saw as a moving target.

Now I know why... I'm confusing "department" with "departure." When will we have an Arrival of Peace, and not a mere Appartment of Peace just to those paying the unending Rent held ransome by Peace Inc? Where are those Justice of the Peace, Conservator of the Peace; Justice of Peace that them Black Panthers (original, not FBI-created) and the Freemen of Montana always talked about. Are Justice of the Peace a type of Pokemon, that I need a Ultra Ball to capture? Given some foreigner, distant from California, a President for the United State of California called "George Bush"; given only them in Congress can Declare War, did that President capture them boogies in Congress with a Master Ball and now the President can Declare War? Can the Presidents/CEOs in Homo Depot or Albertsons declare war?

Waste

[wclacy]

Sounds like a waste.....

Of public money....

and of an article for slashdot....

Of all the import political stories in the world. Why put this story on Slashdot when the really important stories never make it to Slashdot.

Who really cares about some stupid Public Relations move comming from the White House.

Yet another position/department

[r_jensen11]

Just like Department of Homeland Security. Transcripts from the meeting: Bush: What could we call someone to answer questions about the civil liberties these wack-jobs are complaining about? Cheney: How about "Civil-Liberties Officer?" Bush: Yeah, yeah, I like that! It fits right in with my strategery!

Some would argue

[Anonymous Coward]

that a) is not extreme at all - rather the middle way.

The position already exists, it's called....

[Hamster Lover]

the Judicial Branch and U.S. Constitution containing the Bill of Rights. However, Congress is not doing its job as counterbalance to the Executive Branch in the first place as too many civil liberties issues get decided by judges in a court room.

Doubleplusungood!

[WilliamSChips]

The word bad is doubleplusungood.

Re:Doubleplusungood!

[Cederic]

Guess which t-shirt I'm wearing today.

http://www.ntkmart.co.uk/images/ungood.jpg

Read his political stuff

[SlappyBastard]

Thompson was always at his best in politics. Better Than Sex is a great read on the 1992 election, which was probably Thompson's highest point after he didn't have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore.

Other than Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Where the Buffalo Roam, his fiction stuff was marginal at best.

Actually, his sports stuff was pretty good, too. On a good day, Thompson could mix sports, politics and Bible quotes into the damnedest thing you ever read.

Disappointingly, ESPN keeps his entire archive under subscriber lock and key on their website.

Thompson was probably the last white man to understand the NBA on its level.

HST was a great loss, but who would have bet he would have lived that long in the first place?

Let someone else shred it

[wardk]

why have the president out there shredding the Constitution when you can apppoint a special person to do it for you?

I am sure civil liberties will curtail at an even faster pace now, and all the children will be safe

For future historical revisionists (and Fox news);

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush = champion of civil liberties.

Saadam Hussein

[eadint]

I thought sadam hussein was in jail how did he get the job of civil liberties officer.

Oh Ya

[thisNameNotTaken]

Wanna bet.

Look here for Bushie's new adventures:

EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect your digital rights.

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/

EFF's Class-Action Lawsuit Against AT&T for Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Spying Program

Better than a Big Mac lunch:
https://secure.eff.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=D ON_splash&JServSessionIdr011=v8n0n891r1.app2a

Your Choice

[thisNameNotTaken]

2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
Sorry I fell asleep at the keybored